BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, listen to this. ‘Elena Kagan has an extremely sparse paper trail for a Supreme Court nominee, even by recent standards. She reputedly has signaled sympathy to environmental laws and regulation. But with so little to go on, her personal actions offer obscure and conflicting clues. On the one hand, she has a history of needlessly inflating her carbon footprint. ‘A couple of times when she was so focused on her work, she would park her car and leave it running overnight,’ said Lawrence Lessig, a longtime friend who taught alongside Ms. Kagan in Chicago. ‘She just forgot to turn it off.”
They lock people in mental wards for less than this. This, we are told, is a resume enhancer. Elena Kagan, she’s so devoted to her work — I want you to picture this — this woman is so focused on her work, she has to get to her office in Chicago where she’s going to inculcate young skulls full of mush with a bunch of liberal legal BS, so she shows up in the parking lot, she’s so eager to get there, she’s so focused, she can’t wait, she gets out of the car, she grabs all of her papers and suitcases and whatever, gets out of the car and leaves the keys in the car and leaves the engine running, goes inside overnight. What if there had been kids in the car with the engine running?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst at CNN has written a piece here for the New Yorker in which he basically says he’s been Elena Kagan’s friend for 30 years and he has no idea what she believes. How many of you have a friend that you’ve known for 30 years that you would describe as a close friend and all you can say about them is, ‘Clearly she’s a Democrat.’ But beyond that, her views are something of a mystery. How many of you have a close friend you know nothing about? What you know may not be true. You could have a fraud as a friend, at least you — (interruption) what, you have a friend you don’t know anything about? You’re not talking about what I think you’re talking about, are you? A fraudulent friend, yeah, but you knew enough to know they were a fraud at some point. Here’s a guy who knows her 30 years that doesn’t know anything about her. I mean it’s fascinating. It’s weird. All that we know about this woman is that she wanted to ban military recruiters from Harvard and was overturned by the Supreme Court. Wanted to ban ’em. Tried to ban ’em. She lost. That’s the point. But that’s her only significant decision that she’s ever made. While we’re on the subject here let’s go to the audio sound bites. Last night on MSNBC appeared David Axelrod, White House advisor. He got this question: ‘A lot of progressives think that Elena Kagan is not liberal enough, that she doesn’t go anywhere near as far as Justice Stevens. Was the president looking for a liberal leaning judge?’
AXELROD: On the same day that you’re asking me that question, you know, there are people on the right who are hammering her because she clerked for Abner Mikva and she clerked for Justice Marshall and accepted his view that the court should stand up for the least of us. And, you know, she has a long history here that should give people some sense of what her personal sensibilities are but what the president was looking for above all was a justice who believed as he believed, that we have to respect the Constitution, uphold the Constitution, do it in a way that makes sure that everybody gets a fair shake, not just the powerful but everybody gets a fair shake, and that’s a view that Elena Kagan reflects.
RUSH: The implication here is the Constitution’s unfair. That’s what they believe. The Constitution’s unfair. This little notion she clerked for Justice Marshall, accepted his view that the court should stand up for the least of us, it was Media Matters who wrote a piece yesterday that said I supported slavery by analyzing what Kagan meant when she agreed with Marshall that the court should be biased in favor of the despised and the disadvantaged. And Marshall wrote that the Constitution was unjust or — I forget his exact word. They’re on such thin ice here. They know what they’ve nominated. They’ve nominated a clone of Obama, and what they have to do is come up with a way of making her appear to be Obama: thoughtful, wise, learned, deep, charismatic. They got a long shot on that one. But they’re going to try to make everything else about her look like Obama. Let’s see. Here’s Roland Martin. We read his piece from CNN yesterday on the air. He was on Anderson Cooper 220 last night, and Anderson Cooper said, ‘Elena Kagan, you’re disappointed with this? Some on the left are saying she’s too conservative.’
MARTIN: Any time there’s a Republican president they are going to appoint a strong conservative. Yet Democrats always seem to be afraid of appointing a strong liberal, so they’d rather appoint someone who’s a centrist. Folks on the left who are saying she’s not as strong a liberal as they would have liked. If she is confirmed, you will have basically an Ivy League Supreme Court, folks all who went to Yale Harvard, Princeton, or whatever — Stevens went to University of Chicago and law school at Northwestern — it would be nice, frankly, to have points of views who didn’t simply go to these East Coast schools that, frankly, doesn’t represent the same views of other folks across the country.
RUSH: Yeah, well, it might be nice to have a president that didn’t go to one of those schools either, Roland. Clinton went to one of them; Bush went to one of them; Obama went to one of them. When’s the last time we had a president that didn’t go to one of them? The Republicans didn’t always appoint strong conservatives. Look at Souter. Look at O’Connor. John Paul Stevens was appointed by a Republican. These idiots.